Abolitionism moves in the desired correct direction. Some of the criticism levelled at it is to be attributed to a failure to understand or anyway to accept its methodological basis and the policy it adopts. There is no denying that the values of radicalism (radicalism in the sense of “going to the very roots”), the utopia (that is the identification of what should be), the humanism (and not humanitarianism or “ethical paternalism”) and the solidarity the abolitionist movement is based on have themselves a positive value. If the Author wants to take his distance from the movement it is not because he has been persuaded to do so by the criticism levelled at it by other movements, but rather because he believes there is an alternative to be tried out before opting for abolitionism as such consisting in “minimum penal law” or “minimum penal intervention”: despite apparent indications to the contrary, penal law should evolve via gradual restriction of its scope and also by taking into account not only a respect for formal guarantees in its evolution and the inclusion of new limitations, if it considers itself to be politically and criminally correct, but also ideas one cannot ignore such as a re-socialisation and the need for a progressive humanisation of the system. The starting point should be to consider punitive measures as ‘wrong’ because, by doing so, it becomes easier to understand one should attempt to limit them as much as possible.